Related to natural gas development, the most frustrating part of this experience, for me, has been the lack of a fact-based review of the data. That is what you will find here - a fact based review with NO SPIN either way. I try not to make any judgments. The main goal of this evaluation is to understand the nature of the regional water quality and to provide a fact based review of the data. The results are compared to the EPA and Pennsylvania Drinking Water Standards. If no standard was available, we searched for a standard that has been established by another state or the World Health Organization.
First question is why? Because I do not have all the facts for each well for a number of reasons, which include inadequate or no baseline testing and lack of long-term information for each source. I was not on-site or part of the initial baseline testing or investigation, but I was invited on-site to witness the sampling that was conducted by the EPA. Therefore, the following is a review of this single sampling event.
The following is a summary of the water quality data that was generated by the EPA for a private water well identified as HW-7 in Dimock, Pennsylvania. The well was sampled by the EPA, DEP, and the local natural gas development company in February 2012 after the natural gas drilling wells had been drilled, developed, installed, and some under production. The primary objective was to determine the presence of any residual impacts at that specific time.
A fact based review - Well by Well of the Available Well Water Data for the Dimock Area that was generated by the EPA. I was not involved with the sampling, but I was on-site during the sampling and field evaluation of one home. I was invited by the homeowner. We are still in the process of reviewing the data. The main goal of this evaluation is to understand the nature of the regional water quality and to provide a fact based review of the data. The results are compared the EPA and Pennsylvania Drinking Water Standards. If no standard was available, we searched for a standard that has been established by another state or the World Health Organization.
1. Without predrilling data, it is not possible to comment on the cause for any water quality problems. This has been a very frustrating issue for this area. In many cases, there was no to very little predrilling baseline testing conducted or the testing was inadequate and had "Zero" follow-up.
2. Where possible, I have noted situations where elevated levels of a water quality parameter exists in Pennsylvania.
3. If duplicate analysis provided, I attempted to use the highest reported value.
4. This evaluation was based on using the 2011 EPA Health Advisory (Source). For a more recent version of the EPA Health Advisory Click Here.
5. This is not about cause and effect; it is about a review of the data.
With the exception of the following parameters, the remaining values were reported as NOT Detected (U)
Anionic Surfactants or "Foaming Agents" < 0.01 mg/L – the secondary drinking water standard for foaming agents is 0.5 mg/L. (OK)
Barium – 0.137 mg/L – the primary drinking water standard for barium is 2.0 mg/L –– this does not suggest any specific impact and barium is typically detectable in non-saline impacted water at a level of less than 1 mg/L. (OK)
Boron –< 0.050 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available. EPA appears to have a long-term health advisory of 2.0 mg/L, but other states have limits that range from 0.6 to 1 mg/L. Therefore, this does not appear to suggest any form of impact. (OK) World Health Organization Document on Boron.
Calcium- 36.5 mg/L (Total)– no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available. (OK) – the value seems low.
Chloride –23.60 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.
Chromium- < 0.002 mg/L (D) and the EPA/ PADEP primary drinking water standard is < 0.100 mg/L(OK).
Copper – 0.0075 mg/L (OK)- the secondary drinking water standard is 1.0 mg/L and the primary drinking water standard is 1.3 mg/L. (OK)
Ethane – < 0.0012 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard (OK)
Fluoride – < 0.1 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 2 mg/L- PADEP drinking water standard is 2 mg/L.
Iron – < 0.100 mg/L (Total)) – Iron is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.3 mg/L. Therefore, the total iron content does not exceed the secondary drinking water standard. (OK)
Lead – 0.0032 mg/L (Total) and < 0.001 mg/L (D)- Lead is regulated as a primary standard (EPA and PA) at 0.015 mg/L, but the action level in PA for source water is 0.005 mg/L. Because of the hits for copper and lead, it is possible that the nuisance bacteria may be causing some corrosion related problems – Call MIC – Microbiologically Induced Corrosion – Problem recommend inspection of the well, camera survey, shock disinfection, and retesting. This is a common problem Northeastern Pennsylvania and many other regions. (OK) = Level below all action limits, but monitoring recommended. This may also be associated with water discoloration events that are limited in frequency, occur intermittently, and occur during the initial purging or over-pumping of a well,
Lithium – < 0.200 mg/L (Total) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but EPA has recommend a level be below 0.7 mg/L (OK)
Methane – 0.057 mg/L – No specific drinking water standard. (OK). The well water is not above the new PADEP action limit of 7 mg/L. For more details, go to our Methane Website.
Magnesium-7.64 mg/L (D)– no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available. (OK)
Manganese– 0.148 mg/L (Total) and 0.0456 mg/L (Dissolved) – Manganese is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.05 mg/L. Therefore, the total manganese content does exceed the secondary drinking water standard. (Action)-May be advisable to check for iron related bacteria. Water may be associated have a black precipitate.
Nickel – 0.0031 mg/L (T ) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard
is available, but the EPA has suggest a MCL of 0.1 mg/L. (OK)
Sodium – 9.27 mg/L (D) – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but the EPA has added it to the Candidate List to provide more analysis. The EPA’s initial value of 20 mg/L has been clearly identified as not realistic. When chloride (salt is sodium chloride) is present at a concentration of over 250 mg/L, the water can have an “off” taste.At 400+ mg/L chloride, the water will taste definitely salty. (Source- Dr. Brian Redmond, Professional Geologist). (OK)
Sulfate –10. 4 mg/L (OK) – drinking water standard is < 250 mg/L – this does not suggest any specific impact.
Strontium – < 0.200 mg/L – no specific drinking water standard drinking water standard is available, but it is on the EPA Candidate List. The EPA recommends that drinking water levels of nonradioactive strontium should not be more than 4 mg/L. The report limit is consistent with background levels in Northeastern Pennsylvania. If the background level was above 4 mg/L, it would be advisable to test for radiological parameters, especially alpha/beta. (OK)
Total Dissolved Solids – 141 mg/L – Total Dissolved Solids is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 500 mg/L.
Total Suspended Solids - < 10 mg/L – no standard, but would recommend retesting to obtain a lower detection limit.
Uranium – uraurn 0.0021 mg/L (Total) – Uranium is regulated as a primary drinking water standard by the EPA and PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 0.030 mg/L. (OK)
Zinc– 0.0192 mg/L (Total) – Zinc is regulated as a secondary drinking water standard by the PADEP in Pennsylvania and the action limit is 5.0 mg/L. (OK)
Nitrate+Nitrite- N – 0.874 mg/L, this is well below the EPA / PADEP drinking water limit of10mg N/L for nitrate-N and would also be below the limit of 1.0 mg N/L fornitrite-N. (OK)
Ethylene glycol – the reported value is < 10 mg/L – there is no standard, but the EPA has a guidance limit of < 7 mg/L. Other states have lower and higher standards:
New Jersey 0.300 mg/L (300 ppb)
Arizona 5.5 mg/L (5500 ppb)
New Hampshire 7.0 mg/L (7000 ppb)
Florida, Massachusetts, and Minnesota 14.0 mg/L (14,000 ppb)
At a minimum, I would recommend retesting for ethylene glycol other other glycol compounds using a method that is more sensitive or conducting some type of standard additions analysis.
1. No major water quality problems;
2. Manganese is above the secondary drinking water limit and there may be a concern about the presence of nuisance bacteria and action was recommended;
3. Copper, lead, and zinc detected this could suggest a corrosion related problem or a problem associated with nuisance bacteria and action was recommended; and
4. Ethylene Glycol - the testing was not sensitive enough - recommended retesting using a more sensitive method, i.e., a low level of detection or using a different method.
For a thorough Observational Self Test of your water, check out the KnowYourH2O™ Self Test Web App.
Certified Baseline Testing Natural Gas Development - Submit a Request for Consultation with the KnowYourH20 Team. Contact Us
